A win counts as a win in regular PvP. Guild wars is intended to be more competitive than regular pvp. You need some way to differentiate a win from an “almost-but-not-quite win.” i.e. You have to set some rules as to what constitutes ‘good’ play.
It doesn’t, especially within the most important ranks. For those, you could easily up the random bonus to 5000, and it would still rarely make any difference at all.
Random numbers are only random for small samples. The higher the number of samples, the more the sum of those samples converges to the average. For 150 fights, you can expect both parties to gain roughly the same total bonus, which cancels out when determining the winner.
You can try it out at home if you want. Pick some dice (6 sided), roll them 150 times, add up the results. I predict that you will end up pretty close to 525, no matter how often you repeat this. If you were to used 10 sided dice instead, you result would end up pretty close to 825 instead.
Screw all this complicated stuff, I’m just trying to go 5-0 
A very good opening goal.
Once you can do that consistently, you need to understand the scoring and how to improve your score 
1 Like
it will happen,
count how many guilds fight in guild wars, there will always be small % of the guild who will have such situation - cause thats how probability works
it works both ways, statistically it will even out - but when it comes to single units - it wont.
and calling a 30 ppl playing 5 fights a day for 6 days “a big sample” is nonsense, its small sample and the results will show extreme upon the scope of all guilds participating in gw - since all guilds participating is the big sample
i hate the idea that each week some guilds will get unfairly lowered score counted for their performance and rng will punish them while another guild in their place will get not-earned rewards
also you have given me no logical reason why a lower rng point range would be worse
True. But I think the main problem with lack of variety in defense is lack of troops that’s excellent on defense on AI hands. Also some people probably just simply don’t care about defense so they will most like field the same defense for all 6 days. I for one have different defense deck for all colors and. Sometime I changed twice or three time a day. Sometime it’s silly defense that gave me win.
2 Likes
No, its a 3 match game, it shouldn’t be as complicated as they implemented it! XD
1 Like
In this case they should change the final formula like that:
(yeah I repeat myself, but who knows maybe you didn’t this reply of mine 
).
3 Likes
Whatever else Guild Wars is (or isn’t) accomplishing, it is certainly getting me to spend traitstones. I just took Aurai and Wulfgarok from 0 to fully traited so I could use them in a GW battle.
2 Likes
have you invested in wulf before or after the new point system?
Perhaps not, but it is a competitive mode in a match 3 game. There needs to be more complexity than the standard game.
I had missed that solution, and I think it could be very interesting to see how it played out. You might find that the “meta” evolves to focus on one bonus because it’s the “easier” one to max out, but it would be interesting to see regardless. The only issue with this is that it’s harder to break ties with some of the options. Eg Survival Bonus only had 4 possible values. So if everyone was focusing on that, then we’d have the same situation as the original scoring system. Maybe the top two bonuses could be counted?
Well it shouldn’t be based on a million things and a half. Just doesn’t cut much sense really. I mean, look at all these problems ^
i was also thinking that it could be remade to:
FINAL_SCORE = BASE_SCORE + BASE_SCORE * (COLOR_BONUS + MIN(example number 1000, SURVIVAL_BONUS + SPEED_BONUS + MANA_BONUS + DAMAGE_BONUS))
(while all the custom bonuses cap at the “Example number”)
but then i dropped the idea as it felt like a farm-fest
but im liking my idea more then @turintuor 's after all
edit:
my system would mean that if you handled the battle pretty well to be able to farm the statistics - you are player good enough to max the score
if you finish prematurely due to whatever reason- you werent good enough
example maxing scores (random numbers):
- winning in first turn (not first action)
- winning with 20x bigger damage
- winning with 2x bigger damage and 18x bigger mana gain
etc
the system would be also flexible enough that you wouldnt have to wonder did you max that one statistic yet or not? since it counts your overall performance together so you could get a nice " feeling " if you farmed “overall” much enough already or not yet
1 Like
Isn’t this basically the point of the new scoring system? To acknowledge that there are multiple ways to “win good”?
It feels a lot better to me than the old system where there were very clear criteria and in turn you were really forced you down a single path.
2 Likes
Both Aurai and Wulfy happened in the last hour. And the test run did not go well. I never got a chance to match a green gem, so despite Wulfgarok devouring two troops I had to soften them up with skull damage rather than Aurai damage.
1 Like
how about gw points ?
Of course, it requires that all the 4 bonus are perfectly balanced.
Yeah I know… It seems that devs don’t want tie to avoid the casr that they have to pay 1.5k to two guilds 
.
Of course, it can a good solution.
In this case, it means if you do bullshit and have 0 bonus you could have 1000 pts. Strange, no?
Otherwise there is very few difference with the orignial version as with your variant you want to maximize all your bonus to have the bigger min… In worst: bad luck and it takes ages (cough cough Famine) so you did crap with the speed bonus but you get a lot of mana compared to the AI? So bad only the speed bonus will count.
May you mean MAX and not MIN?
Whatever options devs choose, we need in-game counters of the 3 different rules (ie. player actions, mana collected player and AI, dmaage dealt player and AI).
no i mean min
thats why i placed 1000 there not a 4
the cumulative “performance” bonus outside of color would cap at that example 1000 number
the difference between my and your concepts is i want a cumulative performance while you require to max performance of one type
my solutions offers mixed styles, allows more variety, also simplifies things for a player who is trying to figure out will the game max points yet or not - guessing/esitmating your own cumulative performance is much easier then guessing/estimating each performance type separately
the problem with current system is ppl have no idea did they max each separate performance yet or not (and how did they perform at it at all), mine solves this issue
no! lol, it has rules that specifically leave out many troops and playstyles.
1 Like